TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL PACKET JULY 2, 2013 · 2014. 5. 20. · TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL PACKET JULY 2, 2013 The July 2, 2013 Executive Session and Policy Session

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOR CITY COUNCIL PACKET

JULY 2, 2013

The July 2, 2013 Executive Session and Policy Session have been Cancelled.

BACKUP INFORMATION FOR THE WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2013 FORMAL AGENDA Boards Citywide

Page 1

Boards and Commissions - Mayor's Appointments

Boards Citywide

Page 1

Boards and Commissions - Council Members' Appointments

Item 41 District 7

Pages 76-79 Police Department Recommendation for One Liquor License Item on the July 3, 2013 Formal Agenda

Item 48 Citywide

Pages 93-94 Ordinance G-5819 - Amend City Code - Youth and Education Commission

Item 135 Citywide

Page 188 Fiscal Year 2013-2018 Public Art Project Plan

Item 140 District 4

Pages 192-193 Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Decision on a Certificate of Appropriateness for 333 West Coronado Road

Item 141 District 8

Pages 193-197 Ordinance G-5829 - PHO-1-13–Z-115-07-8 - Amend City Code - 32nd Street and Canal Avenue

GENERAL INFORMATION

Liquor License Applications Received for the period of June 17, 2013 through June 21, 2013

End of Legislative Session

Packet Date: July 2, 2013

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

FORMAL AGENDA

TO: City Council AGENDA DATE: July 3, 2013

FROM: Greg Stanton

Mayor

ITEM:1 PAGE: 1

SUBJECT: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission Mayor Greg Stanton recommends the following reappointments: Richard Arroyo Mr. Arroyo is a retired citizen who resides in District 6 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a second term that will expire August 30, 2014. Gary Egan Mr. Egan is the Deputy Director for the Phoenix Art Museum, resides in District 03 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a third time that will expire September 30, 2014. Robert Miley Mr. Miley is the Founder and Executive director for Release the Fear, resides in District 7 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a first term that will expire September 30, 2014. Susan Shaffer-Nahmias Ms. Shaffer-Nahmias is the Interpretive Planner for Interpretive Planning | Instructional Design, resides in District 6 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a third term that will expire September 30, 2014. Mayor Greg Stanton recommends the following new appointments: Joseph Benesh Mr. Benesh is the Director for the Phoenix Center for the Arts, resides in District 8 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Teniqua Broughton Ms. Broughton is the Arts Administrator/Executive Director for Act One Foundation, resides in District 4 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016.

2

Phyllis Bunch Ms. Bunch is a retired Educator, resides in District 2 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Susan Ehrlich Ms. Ehrlich is a retired Appellate Judge, resides in District 3 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Silvana Salcido Esparza Ms. Esparza is a Chef/Restaurateur and owner of Barrio Café, Inc., resides in District 4 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Michele Robins Goldstein Ms. Goldstein is the Radio Announcer/Event Coordinator for KJZZ, resides in District 4 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Geoffrey Gonsher Mr. Gonsher was an Encore Fellow for the Arizona State University School of Public Affairs, resides in District 5 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Edward C.H. Jenson Mr. Jenson is the Digital Knowledge Architect for the Arizona School for the Arts, resides in District 4 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Edward Jones Mr. Jones is the Architect for Jones Studio, Inc., resides in District 6 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Sarah Kriehn Ms. Kriehn is the Artist for Sarah Kriehn Art, resides in District 6 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Hugo Medina Mr. Medina is a Muralist and Artist, resides in District 7 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. He will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016. Regina Nixon Ms. Nixon is the Executive Director for the Phoenix Conservatory of Music which is located in District 1 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3 2016.

3

Jenny Holsman Tetreault Ms. Tetreault is the Executive Director for the ASU Alumni Association, resides in District 6 and is recommended by Mayor Greg Stanton. She will serve a first term that will expire July 3, 2016.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

FORMAL AGENDA

TO: Mayor and Council Members AGENDA DATE: July 3, 2013

FROM: Penny Parrella, Executive Assistant to the City Council

ITEM:1 PAGE: 1

SUBJECT: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee Councilman Sal DiCiccio recommends the following new appointment: Kristin Middleton Ms. Middleton is a Foreclosure Prevention Specialist for Nationstar Mortgage, resides in District 6 and is recommended by Councilman Sal DiCiccio. She replaces Michael Middleton who resigned and will serve a new term that will expire November 19, 2014. Camelback East Village Planning Committee Councilman Sal DiCiccio recommends the following re-appointment: Lee Miller Mr. Miller is an Attorney for The Law Office of Lee Miller, resides in District 6 and is recommended by Councilman DiCiccio. He will serve a term that will expire November 19, 2014. Paradise Village Planning Committee Vice Mayor Bill Gates recommends the following new appointments: Toby Gerst Ms. Gerst is a retired Superior Court Commissioner, resides in District 3 and is recommended by Vice Mayor Gates. She replaces Mark Steinbrueck who resigned and will serve a partial term that will expire November 19, 2014. Jennifer Hall Ms. Hall is a Land Use Project Manager for the Rose Law Group, resides in District 3 and is recommended by Vice Mayor Gates. She replaces Jon Griffin who resigned and will serve a partial term that will expire November 19, 2014.

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

FORMAL AGENDA

TO: Lisa Takata

Deputy City Manager

AGENDA DATE: July 3, 2013

FROM: Cris Meyer

City Clerk

ITEM: 41 PAGES: 76-79

SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE LIQUOR LICENSE ITEM ON THE JULY 3, 2013 FORMAL AGENDA

The attached memorandum supplements the Request for Council Action report for one liquor license item on the July 3rd Formal Council Agenda. This memorandum provides the Council with additional information regarding a Police Department disapproval recommendation for the following item: New Business Item

District 7, LJH Super Mercado y Carniceria For further information regarding this item, please contact the City Clerk Department, License Services Section at 602-262-7003.

2

LIQ

UO

R L

ICE

NS

E D

ISA

PP

RO

VA

L F

OR

M

POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE LIQUOR LICENSE ITEM ON THE JULY 3, 2013 FORMAL AGENDA

Application Information

Business Name LJH SUPER MERCADO Y CARNICERIA District 7 Business Location 3648 W. Southern Ave #148-149 Applicant Name Alma Ramos Series Type 10 The Police Department recommends disapproval of this liquor license application for the following reasons: Additional reasons for disapproval include: The applicant, Alma Ramos,

currently holds a liquor license at 3449 W. Southern Ave, on a county island. She is married to Luis Alberto Hernandez Flores. Luis has an extensive criminal history that includes being arrested for Homicide, Drug Trafficking and Money Laundering between the dates of 2006 and 2012. Luis has been the subject of two major criminal syndicate investigations. These investigations developed probable cause for Luis to be charged with 50 felony counts, including Money Laundering, Narcotic and Marijuana Trafficking, Assisting in a Criminal Syndicate, and Using Electronic Communications for Drug Transactions. The most recent DEA investigation Involving Luis alleges the seizure of $4.5 million dollars in cash and 1,000’s of pounds of marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Luis was listed in a June 5th, 2013 Arizona Republic newspaper article where he was called a “kingpin in a major drug-trafficking organization” responsible for the movement of large amounts of Heroin, Cocaine and Marijuana. Alma and Luis live together. During an initial interview, Alma denied having any associations with any illegal enterprises. She initially tried to hide her husband’s past and only admitted she had knowledge of his arrests after the investigators related they were aware of his activities. Alma claimed she owned and operated her current business separate from her husband’s activities. Alma explained that all of the paperwork for the business was in her name, and she provided documents to prove that assertion. This structuring, though apparently legal, does not prove that Luis is not involved in the business. It is, however, activity that is consistent with other criminal syndicates where all properties are put into the names of family members who are removed from the criminal activity in an attempt to prevent asset seizures if they are later convicted of the crimes they are committing. During the initial interview, Alma claimed she was not associated with anyone involved in any illegal activity and attempted to hide her husband’s criminal record. Later in the interview, investigators confronted her with their knowledge of Luis’s criminal history. She then admitted to knowledge of Luis being arrested, but nothing more. Alma also tried to distance her current business from her husband and his activities, however, law enforcement reports paint a different picture. In 2011, Alma was kidnapped from her business shortly after opening the store. She was held for $100,000 ransom. After she was rescued by law enforcement officers, the kidnappers were interviewed. One of the subjects related that they were sent

3

from California with specific orders to go to the Carniceria and collect $100,000 from “Luis Alberto”. Also, in 2011, the DEA informant who assisted in opening the most recent case against Luis for drug trafficking met Luis at the Carniceria. Alma has misled investigators trying to cover up as to why she is moving her store. During the initial interview, when asked why she was opening a new store so close to her current store, she stated that the owner of the building was raising her lease from $3,000 a month to $7,000 a month. This seemed unusual to the investigator as it was a dramatic increase in rent and the quoted rate is not consistent with the condition of her current building or the area. To confirm this suspicion, investigators contacted the current landlord who related he never discussed raising her rates. He stated that Alma was consistently late with her rent and he was always getting notices from the county about all of the cars being illegally listed for sale on the property so he issued her a notice of eviction. The eviction is effective the end of July 2013. During a follow up interview, Alma altered her statement, relating that she was being evicted, but she continued to claim the owner was trying to raise her rates to $7,000 a month. Alma claims Luis is unemployed except for his work with her horses. She also claimed he makes no money except what she gives him from the proceeds of her horse racing business. Public records show the legal proceeds from her horse racing business as only $13,602 from 2008 – 2013. Alma also claims that the only vehicle Luis has available to drive is a van that she does not have registered yet. However, MVD records show that Luis currently has a 2009 Dodge 1 ton pickup and a 1998 Chevy 1 ton pickup and a 2011 Chevy half ton registered in his name. During both interviews with Alma, she has provided false or misleading information in an attempt to hide her husband’s criminal records, and to explain her current business situation. She has a close association with an alleged major drug dealer which has brought violent crime not only to herself, but to her business. For these reasons I respectfully request that her application for a Series 10 Liquor License be denied.

This recommendation for disapproval is submitted by:

SIGNATURES

Investigating Detective Det. Shon Washburn #7786

Liquor Enforcement Detail Supervisor Lt. Gallagher

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

FORMAL AGENDA

TO: Rick Naimark

Deputy City Manager


FROM: Tim Valencia

Youth and Education Manager

ITEM: 48 PAGES: 93-94

SUBJECT: BACK UP TO JULY 3, 2013 FORMAL AGENDA - YOUTH AND EDUCATION COMMISSION

This memo provides backup information to July 3, 2013 Formal Agenda Item 48, Pages 93-94 regarding revisions to the ordinance governing the Youth and Education Commission as recommended for City Council approval by the Downtown, Aviation and Redevelopment Subcommittee on June 18, 2013. BACKGROUND In 2003, the Phoenix Youth and Education Commission merged three governing bodies: the Phoenix Education Commission, Phoenix Youth Commission, and the Educational Access Governing Board. In 2010, due to budgetary constraints, the Youth and Education Office was dissolved, and the Youth and Education Commission became inactive.

In June 2012, the City Council approved a Youth and Education Manager position to oversee the coordination and delivery of youth and education services citywide. A high priority of the newly formed Youth and Education Office has been to recruit and reengage the Youth and Education Commission. As a part of this effort, staff is recommending a number of changes to the Ordinance which establishes the Commission. These changes include adding a post-secondary education representative and reducing the Commission size from 25 to 17. THE ISSUE The Youth and Education Office is currently seeking individuals interested in advising the Mayor, City Council, and City management on how to enhance educational strategies and positive youth development approaches within City programs and the community. The re-vamped Youth and Education Commission would be comprised of no more than seventeen members from local businesses, youth-serving organizations, secondary/postsecondary institutions, and the Arizona Department of Education. The Commission members would include one youth appointed from each council district and one youth appointed by the Mayor, to assist in advising the City on opportunities and challenges relating to youth. The goals of the Commission include:

2

Creating and strengthening partnerships and communication between the City and secondary/postsecondary institutions

Assisting in establishing policies, developing educational initiatives, and securing resources for school readiness, high school transition to postsecondary education, and career readiness

Providing quality educational television programming targeted to educators, youth, and learners of all ages

Newly appointed commission members will begin meeting in the fall to develop a new vision, mission, and strategic plan for the next three years. The Downtown, Aviation and Redevelopment Subcommittee recommended approval of this item on June 18, 2013. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

FORMAL AGENDA

TO: Ed Zuercher

Assistant City Manager AGENDA DATE: July 3, 2013

FROM: Ginger Spencer

Special Assistant to the City Manager

ITEM:135 PAGE: 188

SUBJECT: BACK UP INFORMATION TO JULY 3, 2013 FORMAL AGENDA - FISCAL YEAR 2013-2018 PUBLIC ART PROJECT PLAN

This report provides back up information to Item 135 on the July 3, 2013 City Council Formal Agenda. THE ISSUE The ordinance establishing the City’s Percent-for-Art Program was adopted in December 1986, and requires the Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission to submit an annual Public Art Project Plan prior to May 1st in advance of each new fiscal year. The ordinance allows for one percent of funding from City Capital Improvement Program projects to be invested in public art to enhance the design and experience of public infrastructure, buildings, and spaces. The proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2018 Public Art Project Plan has been developed by the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture staff in consultation with the City Council, City departments, and community involvement. The $9,992,909 plan includes 60 public art projects. It follows the priorities established in the Phoenix Public Art Program Master Plan, which designates a wide variety of opportunities for art to improve public infrastructure throughout Phoenix, and includes goals for involving Arizona artists in the work. OTHER INFORMATION New Projects The proposed FY 2013-2018 Public Art Project Plan includes three new projects totaling $278,000. They are the North 32nd Street Improvement, 107th Avenue Streetscape, and Desert Sky Transit Center. The three projects were developed in response to community requests to integrate public art as part of the City’s on-going multi-departmental efforts to improve streetscapes and transit facilities for increased pedestrian safety and comfort. Previous examples include the award-winning Baseline Road Streetscape Public Art Project and the recent addition of artist-designed shade structures at new Phoenix Transit Department Park-and-Ride locations, and bus shelters along 67th Avenue. The proposed new projects are listed as the first projects with the requested FY 2013-2018 allocations in Attachment A.

2

Continuing Projects The 57 continuing projects in the proposed FY 2013-2018 Public Art Project Plan have a total budget of $9,714,909. They are listed with requested FY 2013-2018 allocations in Attachment A. Arizona Artist Involvement In previous years, the Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission has recommended a minimum goal of involving Arizona artists and designers in 55 percent of art plan projects. While Arizona artists and designers are eligible and encouraged to compete for all projects, 57 percent (29 of the 51 projects that will involve hiring artists and contractors) of the projects in the proposed FY 2013-18 Art Plan either currently involve Arizona artists and design professionals, or are expected to involve Arizona professionals. Public Involvement Public involvement is critical to the success of Percent-for-Art projects. Neighborhood organizations, village planning committees, schools, and City departments are included as important participants in the public art process. The Office of Arts and Culture staff works closely with the Mayor and City Council offices, and numerous City departments to ensure that neighborhoods affected by an art project are included in the conceptual stage as well as the project’s development. PROGRAM CONTEXT The proposed FY 2013-2018 Public Art Project Plan includes $278,000 in new projects and $9,714,909 in continuing projects, for a total budget of $9,992,909. This total is approximately 15 percent less than the current FY 2012-2017 Public Art Project Plan. The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission approved this item on April 17, 2013. The Parks and Arts Subcommittee reviewed this item on June 12, 2013 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests City Council authorization of the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture FY 2013-18 Public Art Project Plan. Attachments

3

Attachment A

Proposed FY 2013-18 Public Art Plan

New Projects Total 13-18

North 32nd Street Improvement 158,000

107th Avenue Streetscape 100,000

Desert Sky Transit Center 20,000

Continuing Projects

7th Avenue and Melrose Curve 59,160

16th Street & Bethany Home Road Streetscape 36,119

24th Street & Baseline Road Park & Ride 51,000

32nd Street Retrofit/Grand Canal 53,115

56th Street Reservoir Streetscape 100,000

67th Avenue Bus Shelters & Streetscape 88,000

Arizona Falls 35,200

Arterial Canal Crossings 347,557

Artists Initiative V Temporary Projects 54,417

Avenida Rio Salado/Broadway Road Streetscape 751,062

Aviation Portable Works Collection 120,000

Bola Tie Installation on Washington Street 35,000

Buckeye Road Streetscape 107,000

Connected Oasis 60,000

Cultural Voices--Arizona Artists 40,000

Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant Wall and Streetscape 233,000

Downtown Civic Space 13,791

Fire Station 55 107,000

Fire Station 74 120,000

Gimme Shelter Urban Shade 515,368

Grand Canal at Central Avenue 105,000

4

Project Description Total 13-18

Harmon Branch Library 35,000

Hatcher Road Streetscape 138,634

Highline Canal at Circle K Park 10,000

Historic Phoenix Landmarks II 11,114

Isaac Streetscape II 65,000

Kuban Park II 29,000

La Pradera Park 257,880

Lift Station Projects 122,908

Light Rail Corridor 250,000

Matthew A Henson/Hope VI Housing Project 10,000

North Transfer Station Recycling Phase III 85,000

Park at 32nd Avenue & McDowell Road 204,234

Phoenix Biomedical Campus 387,449

Pinnacle Peak Water Reservoir 116,000

Pioneer Living Heritage Village 120,000

Police Precinct Station 700 230,179

Police Precinct Station on Greenway Road 186,780

PSHIA Public Art Master Plan 86,000

PSHIA Phx Sky Train 30,000

PSHIA Phx Sky Train 44th Street Station Interior 12,765

PSHIA Phx Sky Train Terminal 3 Station Platform 50,185

PSHIA Terminal Redevelopments 846,365

Public Works 27th Avenue Solid Waste Management Facility 302,412

Pueblo Grande Entrance & Streetscape 1,802,437

Rio Salado Enhancements 117,053

Roosevelt Street Improvements 395,500

Skunk Creek Recreational Area 81,060

Sonoran Boulevard 10,000

5

South Mountain Library / Western Canal 70,000

Southwest Family Service Center 87,263

SR 51 Artwork Refurbishment 178,565

Street Views 34,557

Thomas Road Overpass Artwork Refurbishment 50,000

Tres Rios Wetlands 20,000

Washington Park Tennis Center 242,000

Water Public Art Plan 7,780

Grand Total $9,992,909

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

FORMAL AGENDA

TO: Rick Naimark

Deputy City Manager


FROM: Derek D. Horn

Acting Planning & Development Director

ITEM: 140 PAGES: 192-193

SUBJECT: BACKUP TO JULY 3, 2013 FORMAL AGENDA - APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECISION ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 333 WEST CORONADO ROAD – APPLICATION HPCA 1200001

This report provides back-up information on Item 140 on the July 3, 2013 Formal Agenda. THE ISSUE The property owner has appealed the Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to the City Council because he wants approval for his entire project, including construction of a new front driveway curb cut and front driveway, and removal of one Mexican Fan palm in the right-of-way (ROW) on Coronado Road. OTHER INFORMATION Application On March 18, 2013 the city of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office (HP) received a CoA application (HPCA 1200001) from Thomas Lenhardt, a representative for the property owner, Robert Russo. The application proposes to:

1. Construct an addition to the detached rear garage;

2. Expand an existing side driveway curb cut on 5th Ave. to access the new garage addition;

3. Construct a new front driveway curb cut and front driveway made with pavers that will partially dead-end at the front façade of the house;

4. Remove one Mexican Fan palm in the ROW on Coronado Road where the new front driveway will be located; and

5. Install four gates into the backyard, and a new concrete strip for parking in the back yard.

Historic Preservation Hearing Officer On April 11, 2013, a public hearing was held by the HP Hearing Officer. The staff report recommended approval of the application subject to stipulations. The hearing officer

2

approved the project with stipulations modified from those recommended by staff. The hearing officer found that a front driveway curb cut and a front driveway that partially dead-ends at the front of the house are not typical of corner lot properties in the Willo Historic District. Historically, in cases where front driveways exist at corner properties, they either extend along the side of the house to a detached garage in the rear yard or lead to a garage that is located under the main house roof. The hearing officer also found that there is no historic or current pattern of palms in the ROW on this segment of Coronado Road, but, because the front driveway curb cut and front driveway were not approved, it was unnecessary to remove one palm. Historic Preservation Commission The property owner appealed the decision to the HPC because he seeks approval of all proposed work, which was also recommended by staff including the staff stipulations. The staff report and presentation materials for the HPC hearing are attached (Attachments A and B). On May 20, 2013, the HPC conducted a public hearing, voted 4-3 to uphold the decision of the HP Hearing Officer, and agreed with the findings of the hearing officer. The Commission also found that the amount of land proposed for parking that would be visible from Coronado Road and 5th Avenue is incompatible with the historic setting in the Willo Historic District. The HPC approved the application subject to same stipulations approved by the HP Hearing Officer:

1. That there be no new driveway cut or new driveway, and no removal of one palm in the Right-of-Way on Coronado Road; and

2. That the new driveway cut on 5th Avenue for the garage addition be concrete to match existing driveway cuts and that the new driveway between the sidewalk and garage on 5th Avenue be visually distinguishable from the adjoining concrete driveway by using a different surface, colored concrete or other technique to break up the appearance of a wide expanse of concrete; and

3. That if the sidewalk on 5th Avenue is damaged by the construction of the new driveway and curb cut, that it be replaced and that the new sidewalk panels match the width, joint, and scoring patterns of the existing sidewalk.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS The City Council may uphold, modify or reverse the decision of the HPC. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only because this is an appeal to the City Council through the “quasi-judicial” hearing process. Attachments: A. Staff Report B. HPC Presentation Materials

Attachment A: Staff Report

Meeting Date 5/20/13 Meeting Time 4:30 p.m.

STAFF REPORT

To: City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Commission

From: Liz Wilson, Historic Preservation Planner

Subject: Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision – Application HPCA 1200001 333 W. Coronado Rd.

This report requests that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the exterior work proposed in Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) application no. HPCA 1200001, subject to stipulations recommended by HP staff, and to partially reverse the decision rendered by the Historic Preservation Hearing Officer. Background This is an appeal of the hearing officer’s April 11, 2013 decision in CoA case number HPCA 1200001 for exterior work at 333 W. Coronado Rd. in the Willo Historic District. The appeal was filed on April 11, 2013 by the property owner, Robert Russo. The subject property consists of a residential corner lot measuring approximately 60’ x 123’ with a one‐story, single‐family ranch style residence constructed in 1941 and a detached garage at the rear, accessible from a driveway off 5th Avenue. See the attached Historic Property Inventory Form for additional information. Since the inventory form was prepared, the original steel casement windows have been replaced with vinyl sliding and single‐hung windows; the original opening sizes were not altered. Originally, the house was probably an unpainted red brick; it is now painted, but the mortar joints, bricks and their row‐lock installation method remain visible. The original wood shingles on the roof have been replaced with asphalt shingles. Both the house and garage are classified as contributing to the Willo Historic District. The applicant proposes to complete the following exterior work: 1. Construct a 14’ wide x 21’ deep garage addition to the north side of the existing detached rear

garage with its front façade located 1’ back/east of the front façade of the existing garage as seen from 5th Ave., and with a hipped roof form and 12’ ridge height to match the existing garage; and to

2. Expand the existing concrete driveway from 5th Ave by 13’6” to access the new garage addition, increasing the overall driveway width off 5th Ave. to about 33’; and

3. To expand the existing concrete radius style vertical curb‐cut to access the new driveway and garage on 5th Ave. to a total width of approximately 38’ at the street; and to

4. To install a new 13’6’ wide x 39’ long concrete paver driveway (from sidewalk to front of house) in the front yard; and to

5. Create a new radius concrete curb‐cut at the east edge of the lot on Coronado Rd. that would be approximately 22’ at its widest and 13’6” at its narrowest point for access to the new driveway; and

1

6. Remove one Mexican palm tree in the right‐of‐way (ROW) to allow for the new Coronado Rd. driveway cut; and to

7. Install a 7’ wide pair of gates at the east side of the house, located 3’ back/south of the front NE house corner, which would open to a new 8’ concrete slab that would extend to the rear fence with a new 3’ wide gate off the alley, and a 10’ wide pair of gates located at the north edge of the new driveway off 5th Avenue.

At the CoA hearing staff’s recommendations and the Hearing Officer’s decision were as follows:

Proposed Work Staff Recommendation Hearing Officer Decision

1. garage addition

Recommended approval as proposed Approved as proposed

2. expanded driveway off 5th Ave

Recommended approval as proposed Approved with stipulation that the new driveway be visually distinguishable from the adjacent concrete driveway by use of a different surface, colored concrete, or other technique

3. expanded curb‐cut off 5th Ave


4. new brick paver driveway in front yard

Recommended approval as proposed Denied

5. new curb‐cut off Coronado Rd.

Recommended that curb cut be reduced to a maximum of 16’ at the widest point of the radius and 11’ at its narrowest point (adjacent to the sidewalk

Denied

6. Remove palm tree in ROW on Coronado Rd.

Recommended approval as proposed Denied

7. Install new gates & concrete pad in backyard


Not in scope of work

Recommended that any damaged sidewalks be replaced in‐kind

Approved as recommended by staff

Three Willo residents sent e‐mails in opposition to some or all of the proposed work. These comments are attached. Findings The work generally appears to meet the Standards for consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness as set forth in Section 812.D of the Zoning Ordinance. The Standards state that “the proposed work will be compatible with the relevant historic… or architectural qualities characteristic of the structure, site, or district and shall include but not be limited to elements of size, scale, massing, proportions, orientation, surface textures and patterns, details, and embellishments and the relation of these

2

elements to one another. The Standards also require “conformance with the guidelines approved by the HP Commission.” General Design Guidelines for Historic Properties were adopted by the HPC on February 26, 1996. The garage addition is sited appropriately — in the rear yard with access from the 5th Avenue —following the historic pattern of detached garages on corner lots in the neighborhood. Even though the garage addition will result in a three‐bay garage, which staff acknowledges is larger than the historic garages generally found in the neighborhood, there are other examples in the district of additions to side‐street garages. Also, the new garage addition will appear subordinate to the historic garage because it will recessed 1’ back/east from the front façade of the original garage and will be almost 5’ narrower than the original double‐bay garage, which is 18’8” wide. The offset will help to break up the overall massing of the new, larger garage. The materials proposed for the new garage addition—frame wood, sand finish stucco, and dimensional asphalt shingles, etc.—are compatible with the historic garage and with other original garages found in the historic district yet are still reflective of modern construction. Of the 118 corner lot properties in Willo, 89 originally had rear garages that were accessed by a single or double‐wide driveway off of either 3rd or 5th Avenues. Staff finds that at least ten of these driveways and curb cuts have been expanded to accommodate three or more vehicles. Staff also finds that some of these side‐street driveways now dead‐end into a fence or building wall because the original garages have been demolished or converted to living space. There have been other alterations to the historic streetscape along 3rd and 5th Avenues as well, including the removal of landscaping in the right‐of‐way and the addition of traffic‐calming devices such as roundabouts, medians, and new sidewalks. Staff does have some concerns about the proposed front driveway cut and new driveway on Coronado Rd. since the majority of these corner properties (approximately 75%) historically had only a side driveway, with access to the garage from either 3rd or 5th Avenues, and an additional 14% had no driveway at all because the detached garage was accessed off an alley. However, staff analysis does reveal some precedent for the existence of front yard driveways on corner lots in the Willo Historic District. There are 13 corner properties (11%) that do have a front driveway and among these are two houses that originally appear to have had both front and side driveways as proposed in the current case. Six of the front driveways on corner lots appear to be original and the other seven were later additions. In most cases, the front driveway provides access to parking at the side or rear of the house although a couple of the front driveways additions do partially dead‐end into the front of the house. There are also a few other examples of interior lot houses with front driveways that now dead‐end into the house due to alterations to the original carport or garage at these properties. Staff does find that the proposed location of the front driveway on the east side of the lot follows the prevailing pattern in the neighborhood and on this block, where the majority of front yard driveways are located at east edge of their respective lots. While it would better fit the pattern if the new front driveway lead to side or rear parking access, staff finds that 8’ of the new driveway will lead to the sideyard, leaving a 5’5” wide portion that will end at the house. Staff finds that the visual impact of the new driveway on the setting will be minimized by use of reddish‐brown concrete pavers instead of poured concrete because it will better visually blend into the landscape and will help to distinguish it as a later addition. Staff has concerns about the width of the proposed front yard driveway cut (13’6” at its narrowest and 22’ at its widest) because it is wider than the typical front yard driveway cuts found in the

3

4

neighborhood. The width of the driveway cuts for the two houses across the street and the house next to this one vary from 9’ to 12’ at their narrowest point and from approximately 13’6” to 16’6” at their widest. To better conform to historic driveway cut patterns in the neighborhood staff recommends that the width of the cut be reduced so that it is no wider than 11’ where it is adjacent to the sidewalk and no wider than 16’ at the outer edge of the radius at Coronado Rd. (staff is not recommending that the actual driveway be reduced from 13’6” to 11’ since the driveway will be built with colored concrete pavers as discussed above). While initially concerned about removal of one Mexican fan palm in the right‐of‐way where the new driveway cut is proposed, staff finds that it will not adversely affect the streetscape because there is no prevailing pattern of palm plantings on this block. A review of aerial photos from 1949, 1957 and 1959 shows that historically there was never a prevailing pattern of palms in the right‐of‐way on this block of Coronado. Those palms that do still exist are mostly California fan palms, which have wider trunks and are shorter than Mexican fan palms. In spite of the proposed alterations, staff finds that the house would still be considered a contributor to the Willo Historic District and that the historic status of the district would not be threatened by approval of this work. However, to minimize the impact to the historic neighborhood setting and better fit with historic neighborhood patterns, staff recommends that the Coronado Rd. curb‐cut be reduced in width. Recommendation Based on the findings above, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approve HPCA 1200001 with the following three stipulations: that the driveway cut on Coronado Rd. be reduced in width to a maximum of 16’ at the widest point of the radius and 11’ at the narrowest point; and that the new driveway (but not the driveway curb cut) on 5th Avenue be constructed with the same concrete paver materials proposed for the front driveway; and that any sidewalks damaged during construction be reconstructed in‐kind to match the width, scoring, and joint patterns of the existing adjacent sidewalks. Attachments: Historic Property Inventory Form E‐mail comments from three neighborhood residents Photos

"HISTORICAL BUILDING FORM" SHPO INVENTORY NO.

ARIZONA STATE HISTORIC PROPERTY INVENTORY

INVENTORY NUMBER: 4 7 SURVEY AREA NAME:

WI LLO-Alvarado HISTORIC NAME:

Herman H. S t e i n House ADDRESS: 333 W. Coronado CITY/TOWN : Phoenix, Arizona TAX PARCEL NUMBER: OWNER : OWNER ADDRESS:

HISTORIC USE : Res iden t i a l PRESENT USE : Res iden t i a l BUILDING TYPE: House STYLE : Period Revival CONSTRUCTION DATE:

1941 ARCHITECT: BUILDER: W. C. Stacey INTEGRITY: Unaltered

USGS QUAD: Phoenix T R S / - 1 / 4 OF THE - 1 / 4 UTM: n/a

DESCRIPTION: ( c o n t ' d ) ROOF TYPE: Hip, with v e n t i l a t o r s ROOF SHEATHING : Wood Sh ing le EAVES TREATMENT : Cornice Molding

WINDOWS : STL-CMT 4/LF WINDOWS : STL-CMT 3/LF ENTRY : Cen t ra l , Recessed

Wood Panel PORCHES : Canopy

Shed STOREFRONTS:

NOTABLE INTERIOR: CONDITION : Good

DESCRIPTION OUTBUILDINGS : Garage

S imi l a r S t y l e , Cont r ibut ing ALTERATIONS:

STORIES: 1 DIMENSIONS: ( L ) ( W ) STRUCTURAL MATERIAL:

Brick PHOTOGRAPH: FOUNDATION MATERIAL: PHOTOGRAPHER : Mike Hamberg

Concrete DATE : January, 1989 WALL SHEATHING: Brick VIEW: South APPLIED ORNAMENT: NEGATIVE NUMBER: WA- 2-28

Wood s h u t t e r s a t doors

ADDIT IONAL ALTERATIONS

INVENTORY NUMBER: 4 7 ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS (annotated form):

This property does retain sufficient integrity of design to convey its historical identity.

EXPLANATION:

SIGNIFICANCE : COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT :

Trends and patterns of Residential Subdivision Development in Phoenix, 1920 to 1940. SEE PAGE OF REPORT RELATIONSHIP: Relates to infill development of subdivision associated with late 1930's building boom.

SIGNIFICANCE: CONTEXT :

SEE PAGE OF REPORT RELATIONSHIP:

S IGNI FICANCE : ARCH1 TECTURE CONTEXT :

The evolution of residential architectural styles and building technology in Phoenix, 1920 to 1940.

SEE PAGE OF REPORT RELATIONSHIP: Example of typical early 1940's house design based on French Provincial period revival style. Bay window, hip roof, cornice molding, and large chimney are elements of style.

ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSON(S):

CONTEXT : residential street

LISTING IN OTHER SURVEYS:

NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:

RECOMENDATIONS THIS SURVEY: eligible in historic district, contributing

COMMENTS :

HPCA 1200001, 333 W. Coronado Rd., Willo Historic District

View facing S/SW: front and east side of historic house View facing south: location of proposed Coronado Rd. driveway and curb cut and

palm to be removed

View facing north: proposed Coronado Rd. driveway to be located here and built with pavers seen in walkways

View facing S/SE: house with detached garage at rear


View facing N/NE: detached rear garage and house View facing west: garage addition to be constructed on north side of existing

garage

View facing east: existing garage – the new driveway and garage addition to be located north of existing driveway and garage

View facing S/SW: general area where garage addition to be built


View facing north: location of proposed 8’ wide concrete slab in back yard View facing east: Coronado Rd. streetscape (subject property to right)

View facing west: Coronado Rd. streetscape (subject property to left) View facing W/SW: streetscape in front of subject property; palm in foreground to

be removed


Corner house across the street from subject property at 3rd Ave & Coronado Rd. with original front driveway (driveway is 9’, flare is approx 13’6”)

Corner house at 334 W. Palm Lane with original front driveway (original garage under main roof has been converted to living space)

Corner house with front driveway addition at 3rd Ave. & Windsor Ave. Corner house with original front driveway cut and front driveway addition at 5th Ave

& Holly St.

Corner house with carport addition and new side driveway at 3rd Ave. & Monte Vista Rd.

Corner house with garage addition and driveway expansion at 3rd Ave. & Holly St.

Corner house with curb cut expansion at 5th Ave. & Encanto Blvd. Corner house with curb cut expansion at 3rd Ave & Encanto Blvd.


Attachment B: Historic Preservation Commission Presentation Materials

333 W. Coronado Rd. Aerial

▲N

5th A

ve

Coronado Rd

333 W. Coronado Rd. – Existing Palm Pattern Analysis on block

PPaallmm SSppeecciieess California Fan Mexican Fan Date short/young palm

16’11’

HPCA 1200001

333 W. Coronado Rd. – Work Recommended by HP Staff:

1. Garage addition*

2. Expanded driveway curb cut on 5th Ave*

3. Expanded side driveway made with pavers**

4. New front driveway curb cut with reduced width**(11’ wide at sidewalk, 16’ max at curb)

5. New front driveway made with pavers*

6. Remove one palm in ROW on Coronado Rd.*

7. Install new gates & concrete pad in backyard*

8. Repair any sidewalks damaged by construction**

*As proposed in original application

**Recommended staff stipulation (modified from original application)

12 3

4

5

6

7

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

FORMAL AGENDA

TO: Rick Naimark

Deputy City Manager


FROM: Derek D. Horn

Acting Planning & Development Director

ITEM: 141 PAGE: 193-197

SUBJECT: BACK UP INFORMATION TO JULY 3, 2013 FORMAL AGENDA - PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE ADOPTION OF PHO-1-13–Z-115-07-8 LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 32ND STREET AND CANAL AVENUE

This report provides back-up information on Item 141 on the July 3, 2013, Formal Agenda. THE ISSUE A request to modify stipulations from an approved 2009 rezoning case has been submitted for approval to the City Council. The request is for a 10.0-acre parcel located approximately 700 feet west of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Canal Avenue. Application is being made by Ed Bull of Burch & Cracchiolo on behalf of Sean Cummings of Canal Crossing Phoenix # 2. OTHER INFORMATION Modification of Stipulation case PHO-1-13–Z-115-07-8 is a request to modify stipulations to allow for the development of the third phase of the original project. The applicant proposes to combine the buildings into one larger building and gain approximately 36,866 square feet of building area. In addition, the applicant is proposing access to Old Southern and Southern Avenues. The application was reviewed by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee on April 9, 2013, and recommended approval of Stipulation 6, technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 4, 7, and 8; and denial of Stipulations 1, 3, and 5 on a 6-4 vote. The application was heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on April 17, 2013, and recommended for approval with modifications because: 1) The proposed modifications are in keeping with the intent of original rezoning, 2) The proposed development provides adequate perimeter buffers to mitigate impacts

to the adjacent residential areas, and 3) The proposed site plan addresses existing traffic issues and keeps the landscape

buffers for the residents to the west.

2

The application was heard by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2013, and recommended for approval per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation with two additional stipulations outlined in the memo dated June 11, 2013, from Ed Bull on a 5-3 vote. Staff recommends approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. The opposition has appealed the approval recommendation for this case. Neighborhood objections have been expressed regarding potential traffic issues regarding ingress and egress as well as general large truck traffic. There were numerous concerns regarding large truck traffic turning onto the site and the diesel fumes. The placement of the cul-de-sac raised some concerns among neighbors and objections were expressed regarding the one large building configuration, number of truck docks on-site, and increase in building height. Attachment includes the following:

Staff Report PHO-1-13–Z-115-07-8 (Pages 1-26) June 11, 2013 letter from Ed Bull (Page 27) Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 28-41) Appeal (Page 42-54) Support Letters (Page 55-56) Opposition Letters (Page 57-193)

Staff Report: Z-115-07-8 (PHO-1-13) May 15, 2013

APPLICATION: Z-115-07-8 (PHO-1-13) APPLICANT: Ed Bull - Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. REPRESENTATIVE: Ed Bull - Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. OWNER: Canal Crossing Phoenix # 2-Sean Cummings LOCATION: Approximately 700 feet west of the northwest corner of 32nd

Street and Canal Avenue REQUEST: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance

to the site plan 2) Modification of Stipulation 3 regarding the 6-foot CMU wall 3) Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding building height 4) Modification of Stipulation 6 regarding landscape standard

for employee and visitor parking areas 5) Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this request be approved as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer. PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: On April 17, 2013, the Planning Hearing Officer continued the case to May 15, 2013 without fee. On May 15, 2013, the Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with modifications. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND: On October 31, 2007, City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-115-07, a request to rezone approximately 10.47 acres located approximately 900 feet west of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Old Southern Avenue to CP/BP to allow for commerce park development, subject to stipulations. On April 17, 2013 the Planning Hearing Officer continued the case to the May 15, 2013 PHO hearing. A PHO was approved on May 15, 2013 to modify stipulations. 1. Previous History:

• On October 31, 2007, City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-115-07, a request to rezone approximately 10.47 acres located approximately 900 feet west of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Old Southern Avenue to CP/BP to allow for commerce park development, subject to stipulations. The site plan included six separate buildings and extensive landscape buffer.

Staff Report: Z-115-07-8 (PHO-1-13) June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Page 2 of 5

• Currently, the applicant proposes to modify these stipulations to allow for the development of the third phase of the original project. The applicant proposes to combine the buildings into one larger building and gain approximately 36,866 square feet of building area. In addition, the applicant is proposing access to Old Southern and Southern Avenues.

2. Neighborhood Concerns

• Objections were expressed regarding potential traffic issues regarding ingress

and egress as well as general large truck traffic. There were numerous concerns regarding large truck traffic turning onto the site and the diesel fumes.

• The placement of the cul-de-sac raised some concerns among neighbors.

• Objections were expressed regarding the building configuration and number

of truck docks on-site. 3. Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision:

The Planning Hearing Officer recommended was based on the following:

• The proposed modifications are in keeping with the intent of original rezoning.

• The proposed development provides adequate perimeter buffers to mitigate impacts to the adjacent residential areas.

• The proposed site plan addresses existing traffic issues and keeps the

landscape buffers for the residents to the west. VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE (VPC) RECOMMENDATION: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee reviewed this request on April 9, 2013, and recommended denial as filed and approval of Stipulation 6 and technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 4, 7, and 8; and denial of Stipulations 1, 3 and 5. Vote: 6-4 DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS: • Streets Transportation, Floodplain Management:

It has been determined that this parcel/location is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), but is located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 2135 F of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated September 30, 2005.

• Fire Prevention

Fire prevention does not anticipate any problems with this case. The site or/and building(s) shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code

Staff Report: Z-115-07-8 (PHO-1-13) June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Page 3 of 5

Also we do not know what the water supply (gpm and psi) is at this site. Additional water supply may be required to meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commerce/Business Park CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE: Land Use Zoning On-site: Vacant CP/BP North: Office, Retail, Warehouse IND PK South: Vacant Commercial, SFR Residential C-2, R-5 Urban Subdivided, Auto-repair garage East: Commercial CP/BP West: Residential Parcels R1-6 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this request be approved as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer with modifications as follows: STIPULATIONS: GENERAL 1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and

elevations BUILDING PERSPECTIVE date stamped September 7, 2007 MAY 10, 2013, as modified by the following stipulations, and as approved or modified by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE TRUCK DOCKS BEING LOCATED ONLY ALONG THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THERE BEING ACCESS FOR TRUCKS (INCLUDING SEMI TRUCKS) TO AND FROM THE SITE AT THE CANAL AVENUE ALIGNMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE AS APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

SITE DESIGN 2. That a 50-foot building set back shall be provided from the south property line, as

approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Staff Report: Z-115-07-8 (PHO-1-13) June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 3. That a 35-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the south property line,

as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. A 6-foot CMU wall shall be provided adjacent to the south landscape setback. The wall shall be offset two feet for every 50 feet of wall length; the two-foot offset may encroach into the 35-foot landscape setback IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A 40-INCH SCREEN WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO PARKING AREAS FACING THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND AN 8-FOOT CMU WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED TO SCREEN LOADING BAYS/DOCKS FROM THE STREET.

4. That a minimum 35-foot, landscape setback shall be provided along the west

property line, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. Trash enclosures may encroach into the setback a maximum of 10 feet. The landscape setback shall contain a minimum of two staggered rows of trees, planted at rate of approximately 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings; 50 percent of the required trees shall be 2-inch caliper and 50 percent shall be 3-inch caliper. The landscape setback shall contain natural ground covering such as flowers and shrubs.

5. That the maximum BUILDING height of buildings adjacent to the south property

line shall be 27 36 feet, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

6. That development EMPLOYEE AND VISITOR PARKING AREAS WITHIN THE

DEVELOPMENT shall be subject to the Parking Lot Area landscape requirements of Section 623 (C-2 District) of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

7. That loading docks shall not be located between the south property line and the

buildings adjacent to the south property line, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

8. That any lighting of signage shall be from a source exterior to the sign, signs

shall not have interior lighting, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

9. That signage shall not be visible from the west property line, as approved by the

PLANNING AND Development Services Department. ARCHAEOLOGY 10. That in the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction,

the developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

Staff Report: Z-115-07-8 (PHO-1-13) June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Page 5 of 5 PARKS AND RECREATION 11. That the developer shall dedicate a 20-foot trail easement along the north

property line, as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Oleanders shall not be planted within the trail easement and any existing oleanders within the easement shall be removed.

12. THAT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE

DEVELOPMENT ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT A CUL-DE-SAC ON CANAL AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE SITE. THE FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN OF THE CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT’S SITE REVIEW PROCESSES.

13. THAT NO EXTERNAL LOUD SPEAKERS SHALL BE PROVIDED OR

OPERATED ON THE PROPERTY. 14. THAT PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER

SHALL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY REQUESTING THE CITY’S ABANDONMENT OF THE CANAL AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN SOUTHERN AVENUE AND THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT IS PROPOSED IN CANAL AVENUE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IF THE RESOLUTION OF ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN PRIOR TO PHYSICALLY CLOSING THE ABANDONED PORTION OF CANAL AVENUE TO PUBLIC TRAFFIC, THE DEVELOPER (IF PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED IN WRITING BY SUCH PROPERTY OWNER(S)) SHALL GRANT TO THE REQUESTING OWNER(S) OF APN 122-68-003 (CURRENTLY CROTHER), 122-68-001A (CURRENTLY KENISON), AND/OR 122-68-001B (CURRENTLY GODFREY) AN APPROXIMATE 25-FOOT WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT(S), TO/FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTY(IES) AND SOUTHERN AVENUE. THE FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN OF THE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT(S) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

15 14. THAT BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE SHALL NOT BE PROVIDED ON THE

WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. ATTACHMENTS: Applicant’s Narrative dated March 1, 2013 G-Ordinance No. 5025 Rezoning Sketch Map Zoning Map Aerial Approved Site plan date stamped September 7, 2007 Proposed Site plan date stamped May 10, 2013 PHO Summary of May 15, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes for June 11, 2013

16

Item #: 13 Application #: PHO-1-13--Z-115-07-7(8) Existing Zoning: CP/BP Acreage: 10.0 Location: Approximately 700 feet west of the northwest corner of 32nd

Street and Canal Avenue Proposal: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general

conformance to the site plan 2) Modification of Stipulation 3 regarding the 6-foot CMU wall 3) Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding building height 4) Modification of Stipulation 6 regarding landscape standard for employee and visitor parking areas 5) Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9

Applicant: Ed Bull - Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. Owner: Canal Crossing Phoenix #2-Sean Cummings Representative: Ed Bull - Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. Mr. Alan Stephenson presented PHO-1-13--Z-115-07(8); a request to modify Stipulations 1, 3, 5, 6 and technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of rezoning application Z-115-07 to consolidate six buildings to one larger building located approximately 700 feet west of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Canal Avenue. These requests are only stipulation modification requests as the zoning has already been granted for this parcel. The requests were appealed from the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) by the opposition. The South Mountain Village Planning Committee reviewed this request and recommended approval of modification to Stipulation 6 to limit C-2 parking lot landscaping requirements to employee and visitor parking areas and technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9. The Committee denied modifications to Stipulations 1, 3 and 5. The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval of modifications to Stipulation 1, 3, 5 and 6 as requested and technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9. The applicant has requested to add two additional stipulations that are outlined in a memo dated June 11, 2013 from Ed Bull as a result of on-going discussions with the Office of Arts & Culture, the Street Transportation Department, the Planning and Development Department, neighbors and others to retain/maintain existing improvements to Patrick Park and that the subject site be redesigned and improved for truck traffic to exit onto Canal Avenue and Old Southern through Patrick Park. Mr. Ed Bull stated the PHO recommendation is a combination of some of the technical corrections that Mr. Stephenson stated and cleaning up some of the stipulations so the site can be developed and adding some additional stipulations to improve upon existing conditions. This property had been designated Commerce Park on the General Plan since 1989 and zoned Commerce Park for six years. The builder has been in the business for a long time and is confident on what will or will not work on this vacant in-fill site. Mr. Bull presented an aerial of the area, outlining the subject site which was referred to as Phase III of Canal Crossing. Phase II are the buildings to the east. Mr. Bull indicated that they have not only worked with the Planning and Development staff but


17

also with the Street Transportation, Arts and Culture and a variety of other staff in the City to work on a plan that deals with the issues and problems to make the site viable. The access to the site going east toward 32nd Street is a private access easement running through Phases I and II that benefits the Phase III site with access to and from 32nd Street. They have split the access points to be able to go to and from 32nd Street and Southern Avenue via Canal Avenue. There is also another access designation point to Southern Avenue; the site plan lays out intentionally for stipulation one with the loading docks on the west side of the building; truck access can circulate around all the east, north and west side of the building. The building is set up for one tenant although it is more likely it will be for multiple tenants. It is designed for up to three tenants in this particular building. In the course of this process there have been many versions of the site plan and what to do with Canal Avenue which most people refer to as Old Southern; which is the street along the southern boundary. This plan has some support from the immediate neighbors and opposition from some distance neighbors. They have worked hard with the various city departments and neighbors to make this site the best it can be with split access and maintaining the stipulations in regards to landscaping set backs, walls, screening and other kinds of items to maximize the assurance that this is a compatibly developed site and to also add the stipulations to improve the existing conditions. The stipulations will also put further restrictions on signage and keeps the trail, which is very important to the neighbors along the northern edge of the property. They are asking for stipulation #5 to be modified; the height of the two buildings next to Southern Avenue would be limited to 27 feet, the remainder of the site could be developed up to 56 feet which is permitted under the Commerce Park development standards. The site could also be developed with greater lot coverage than what is currently shown. They are not maximizing the site in terms of height, lot coverage or square footage. They have dealt with many issues that continue to evolve through the two PHO meetings that they have held and have done their best to deal with the concerns of one neighbor that is opposed to the cul-de-sac which is near the southeastern corner of the site. This particular neighbor owns two parcels that front Southern Avenue and two that front Old Southern/Canal Avenue which he has legal access to. Other neighbors have expressed they want the cul-de-sac because of the speed of cut through traffic on Southern Avenue. They have intentionally placed the cul-de-sac conceptually in that location per discussions with the Street Transportation Department; the lots concerned can access Old Southern to travel east and have access to the cul-de-sac or Mr. Bull’s client can provide a private egress/ingress easement. Old Southern/Canal Avenue can be abandoned between Southern around the odd bend to the west edge of the cul-de-sac. That was a stipulation that the Planning Hearing Officer did not believe should put into a PHO stipulation case; instead it should be dealt with through abandonment. As provided from that hearing and in the stipulations, they have told neighbors and agree with city staff to apply for the abandonment knowing that they will need to continue to provide parking to Patrick Park.


18

Mr. Bull thanked the neighbors that participated with them throughout this process. At the village meeting there was opposition from the commerce park to the east who has now submitted letters in favor and is here to speak this evening. Opposition from properties from the “triangle” area between Old Southern/Canal Avenue on the north and Southern Avenue on the south; with the exception of the issue of the cul-de-sac they believe they have worked out their concerns. They have also dealt with issues and concerns with neighbors to the immediate west; they do not have opposition there. The appeals that were filed came from distant properties not to the immediate area. Mr. Bull is requesting the Planning Commission to concur with the PHO and staff recommendation with includes the stipulation in the staff report and the two additional stipulations that concern Patrick Park and stated in his letter that was mentioned at the beginning of the hearing. Commissioner Montalvo asked about the opposition that was not from the immediate area. Were they property or home owners? Mr. Bull stated there were two appeals that were filed, one by a property owner who lives approximately one mile away with other names attached to that appeal. The other appeal was filed by a homeowner that lives approximately one and a half miles from the site with other names attached to that appeal as well. Mr. Bull stated he believes they are residents in the one mile to mile and half range. Commissioner Montalvo also asked about the immediate owners in opposition. Mr. Bull stated on the west there is no opposition, to the immediate east which is also Commerce Park there was also no opposition. The Southeast area had no opposition to the development itself that he is aware of except for the one owner that owns the four parcels that he spoke about earlier. Commissioner Montalvo asked why those in opposition of the cul-de-sac did not want it and who suggested the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bull stated it is the one neighbor who owns the four parcels who is sensitive to losing public street access to his properties that legally front on Old Southern/Canal Avenue. Other neighbors that have been in this neighborhood for many years suggested the cul-de-sac because of prior discussions with the city that if the development occurred on the north side of Old Southern; a cul-de-sac would be put in. The PHO agreed with their suggested stipulations with one exception of the abandonment issue. The two added stipulations have evolved more recently in discussions as to how to deal with what unfortunately is not a very well maintained Patrick Park as it exist today. The city would like them to help with doing some reconstruction which may require changing the configuration of Old Southern; and as they maintain this that the landscaping is kept by trimming the trees, etc. Ms. Carolyn Williams stated she represents the Canal Crossing Owners Association whose members are the immediate adjacent neighbors to the subject property to the east; they are the owners of Phase I and II. They voiced their concerns to the applicant


19

who was very diligent in working hard with them. All of their concerns have been addressed and have reviewed the revised site plan and the modifications to the stipulations that they have requested. Ms. Williams asked the Commission to approve all of the applicant’s requests. Mr. Bobby Garza stated he is the owner of the four parcels that have been spoken about. He is in favor of this project because the park will be refurbished and the cul-de-sac was part of the plan when the Commerce Park was first built; that as the area developed the cul-de-sac would be put in place because of the added traffic and now there will be additional traffic from this project. Currently it is an empty field used as a dump site and it is an eye sore. Mr. Garza believes this would be best for the neighborhood and stated he did not get any type of compensation for being in favor of this. Mr. Garza was a member of the Village Planning Committee for two years and was involved with this project when it was first presented. Mr. Tony Aceto stated he owns several parcels in the area and Mr. Garza is his neighbor; they are the neighborhood and are the only ones who live on Old Southern. He agrees with what Mr. Garza stated. The developer has worked with them and has listened to their concerns. He is hoping that this will address the traffic problems. Ms. Patty McKinstry stated she has lived in the South Mountain area for 25 years and is a former South Mountain Village Chair, BOA member and Chaired the Maricopa County Planning Commission. She believes this has been posted incorrectly; first as one acre then as ten acres. It was then zoned as multi-tenant although it has the look and feel of single-user option but does not carry that zoning. Ms. McKinstry asked the Planning Commission to postpone this hearing for time to obtain the correct information. Ms. Tina Leadbetter stated in answer to the question that was asked about how far the neighbors are that are opposing; she lives almost one mile away but there are four who signed her appeal to this case that live on 28th Street which is a few blocks away. There is also a note within the PHO minutes that state a letter was received from Ms. Schneider who is opposed lives adjacent to several of the neighbors who spoke in favor. They are opposed because of the change in zoning based on some of the stipulations that have been made. Changing from six small building to one 155,000 square foot building has requested a 25% increase in space; as well as for the ceiling height to increase to 36 feet. Although this is not maxing out the zoning it tells them this will be used for a trucking distribution facility instead of a low density Commerce Park. Those in opposition may live more than a ½ mile or ¼ mile or 1 mile away but when the trucks are backing up they will be in hearing distance of those back-up beepers. They are working hard to bring agriculture back into the City of Phoenix. This is not in keeping with the rural character that they have in their community. Ms. Leadbetter also asked for a postponement to this case. Ms. Lisa Peterson stated she is not one and a half miles away but approximately five blocks; four houses down from Southern. This is a truck depot that will probably get ten to twenty semi-trucks in an hour going into the facility. It is set up for forty bays of trucks. This will definitely change the neighborhood and will cause traffic problems on 32nd Street, Baseline Road and Southern Avenue where the traffic is already congested.


20

The area consists of golf courses and schools; there is a new school one block across this site on Southern Avenue. They do not have an objection to development; the six small buildings were the original plan. It is now a 155,000 square foot building which is not what was told it was going to be originally. Ms. Peterson is asking the Commission to delay this case to be looked into further because the impact is intense for those also living six blocks away. Commissioner Davis asked for the name of the subdivision on 37th Street. Ms. Peterson stated Bartlett Heard Ranch. Ms. Tanis Earle declined to speak as to not to be redundant but did state she is in opposition and agrees with all that has been spoken in opposition this evening. Mr. Bill Glover stated he is from the Awakening Seed School located on 40th Street between Baseline Road and Southern Avenue. Mr. Glover stated he is not against the Commerce Park; they are all over the neighborhoods; but the truck terminals are not good for schools. The west Phoenix area has many of these terminals and that is where this one should be; also there is much more land in that area. There is another huge project coming in across the street from this one and Mr. Glover believes if this case is approved the next one will also be. The South Mountain Village Planning Committee has spent many years in putting the village vision in place and would not like to see the hard work done for nothing. A comment was made that if this is not built jobs will be lost, he does not believe so; this can be built elsewhere, even a mile or so farther down from the proposed site. They are happy to have a commercial center but in the way it was designed; not this truck terminal. Commissioner Katsenes asked Mr. Glover if he was representing the school and the name. Mr. Glover stated he is representing the school which is called Awakening Seed School in its fourth year. The playground is along 40th Street. Mr. Robert Peu stated he lives inside the golf course facility at the Legacy Golf Resort. He is not on a surface road but understands the impact it will have on the surface streets in his area. He is concerned with the height restrictions; 32nd Street is a single lane for the majority of the footage between Baseline Road and Broadway Road and with the additional impact he feels the city is getting ahead of themselves for the liability and impact that comes with the additional usage of the streets. Mr. Peu believes there needs to be additional time given to the neighbors in the area. Mr. Paul Van Buren stated he lives very close to the proposed project. Because this is a change in stipulations and not a rezoning request the developer had no obligation to inform the community about this project. He became aware of this about three and a half weeks ago and became involved. Over the last week he has spoken to many neighbors in communities who are adjacent or close to this proposed project. The Legacy and Raven homes south of 32nd Street, condominium owners, etc; with the exception of the property owners that will cash in on this project; with increased property


21

values to go industrial, is not in favor of this project. Mr. Van Buren stated that Mr. Bull is a professional who has developed relationships with city planners for decades and typically get what he wants. Those in opposition do not want this project in their neighborhood. They will fight to keep it out. There is much residential growth with minorities and urban dwellers coming into this area reshaping the growth patterns and creating more development. People are attracted to this area because it is not all concrete; where there is fresh air and a comfortable feel. Mr. Dan Peitzmeyer stated he is a resident of the Legacy; he moved out of central Phoenix 12 years ago to live in this area because of the beautiful and unique nature. There is much multi-use; agricultural, industrial, light Commerce Park, resorts, golf courses, etc. Mr. Peitzmeyer spoke of the many strong leaders this area has had which help defeat the Walmart that tried to develop the big box store on 24th Street and Baseline Road; Walmart is now there with a smaller grocery store which the neighborhood prefers. Mr. Peitzmeyer does not oppose development, but does not want a truck distribution center; the area cannot handle the current traffic volume. He noted that he became aware of this case only a week and a half ago. Ms. Barbara Schneider stated she grew up on the property on Southern Avenue, the four parcels that Mr. Bull stated is in opposition to this project. Her grandparents purchased this property in 1946; her family has lived there since 1950. Some of the neighbors have stated they do not reside on the property, they do; they have a vested interest and passion for this area. Ms. Schneider served on the South Mountain Village Planning Committee; and as chair. The Village worked very hard on this project, without having to make changes. They believed this was a great compromise going from the rural zoning. In 1990, Southern Avenue was changed to a four lane street, it closed them off from entering Southern Avenue from their property; they had to exit from Canal Avenue/Old Southern Avenue. That is the access from the back of their property. By making these additional changes it will take away their access to the back parcels. They were not notified of the meeting or received late notices; other neighbors to the east received notices and invited to meetings, they were not. Mr. Greg Brownell stated the site plan shown this evening is not the original site plan that was shown at the village meeting; it did not show the work that was done with six buildings. How can this jump from six buildings to one through one stipulation. This is a unique area with even those not living near will be impacted by this. Mr. Brownell spoke of a woman who lives on Tanner and 18th Street off of Broadway Road. She comes to the farm on South Mountain and knows every single tree in the area; this is not about the people within 600 feet of this project; this is about the entire community. Ms. Jolyn Owen stated she served on the South Mountain Village Planning Committee many years ago and worked on the General Plans for years. The cul-de-sac is a separate issue from the building changing from six buildings to one. The cul-de-sac should have been put in years ago; favoring this project is not the way to get it. Commerce Park zoning has meant business offices not this big box transit. She is aware they are asking for time to further review this but she believes it should be denied. Just because the area is empty and affordable does not mean it is right.


22

Mr. George Randall stated he is within a one mile radius of this project. Mr. Randall directed the Commission to the first picture slide that was shown at the beginning of the hearing. Many of the neighbors to the north of the project were not heard from which is Commerce Park and Industrial which was put together in the 1980’s when he was the spokes person for this home owners association. They worked diligently to put together that Industrial Park. It is very large and towards 24th Street there is a very large vacant piece of property which would be a better use of a large building. The area where it is now proposed is very small in comparison. Only the southern half of the area is being spoken to. In Phase I the canal was a natural barrier and provided all of the stoppage needed. There are two schools that are very near the proposed projects. Additional cards submitted in opposition who did not wish to speak. Bruce Leadbetter Bruce McKinstry Kent June Thom Bawden Sandy Bawden Dan W Davis Beverly Kaist Dee Davis Molly O’Neill Jean Achley Blake Peterson Bill Schneider Sam Crolter Linda Bonhem Dave Bonhem Brian Lester Kerry Lester *************************************************************************************** Commissioner Madeksza left the hearing at 7:35 p.m. *************************************************************************************** Mr. Bull reemphasized that this is not a rezoning case; they are not adding any uses that are not already permitted under the approved vested zoning. Trucks are permitted. Truck access and any type of access are permitted to and from 32nd Street. Unlike Phases I and II that had stipulations prohibiting access from Canal/Old Southern, Phase III does not. The zoning is in place and is consistent with the General Plan. The traffic routing is permitted under the existing zoning. The adjustment in height caps it substantially below what is permitted under this permitted vested zoning. Commerce Park under the Business Park option; which is what they are, permits up to 56 feet in height; this project caps the height to 36 feet across the entire site. Mr. Bull stated they are also not maximizing the site in terms of lot coverage and square footage. Business Park allows 40% in lot coverage, 50% including shade canopies. They are at about 35%. For buildings of this type from 2006 to 2012 that were 20,000 square feet or less in size had a negative absorption every year for six years. The developer of Phases I and II; if it would have been thought to be successful could have kept developing to the west; which is the proposed site; Phase III. Two different traffic studies were submitted, one based on ITE criteria; the other which is a comparative study to see how much more additional traffic, if any, is being generated by this proposed development versus what was shown on the prior site plan. The average daily truck trips per the ITE criteria which all traffic engineers use in calculating traffic for light manufacturing is 6 additional trips per day, not per hour or minute. For warehousing functions it would be 10 additional trips per day. Breaking this down further per truck, it is half as many because one trip is in and one trip is out with the same truck. Three additional trucks under one


23

land use pattern, five additional trucks per day comparing the square footage under the small building plan versus this plan. Mr. Bull again went over one of the exhibits with the footprint of the building at an earlier version that had the loading docks on the east side of the site. That was one of the many changes that were made through the process of working with neighbors and staff. The light tan buildings are two-scale placements of the buildings that were shown on the 2007 site plan. The square footage increase did not start from zero; it starts with where they were. All of the advertising and posting were done; letters were sent. The people who attended the village meeting or the first or second PHO hearing, made a phone call or any type of contact from anyone who expressed an interest no matter where they lived where added to the contact list and were invited to attend all meetings and hearings. Many of these issues have been talked through regarding the existing zoning and General Plan; not one has spoken about down zoning, the only way to get to where those in opposition are proposing is for the Planning Commission or the City to effectively down zone this property and change the General Plan designation on this property to take away some of the land use, traffic related and use rights that are part of the vested zoning on this property. Because of changing circumstances; which happens, the same plan does not make sense for what is needed today. Mr. Bull spoke to the neighbors who had history regarding the cul-de-sac and there are pros and cons for it. The applicant and the Street Transportation Department are doing everything they can as to not deny Ms. Schneider’s access to their property. Mr. Bull also emphasized that no neighbor has been cashing in on this project. Commissioner Montalvo asked which would bring in more traffic, the six buildings or the one large building. Mr. Bull stated under the ITE criteria it does not differentiate numbers of trips between building size in this context. The additional trips that were shown are the net additional trips because of the increase in building size; again the size is less than what it could be under the approved zoning. It would be less traffic because there is less square footage; it might be a different type of traffic that could be higher than the kind of traffic they are talking about for this project. Commissioner Davis stated she understands that the application does not specifically change the underlying zoning but specially wants to speak about the use that the client is asking for versus what is actually intended. Are the six buildings currently being utilized in the same context that the client intends to utilize in one? Commissioner Davis believes this is the underlying concern for the neighbors. Mr. Bull stated under the Commerce Park/Business Park option, which is what they are, the uses can include light manufacturing, warehousing, etc. In the context of Phases I and II and in the original site plan there are trucks coming and going and there are truck docks. There is more truck docks on this proposed building if there were all used. There is no obligation that trucks serving a building necessary come to and from a dock but this does work better if the dock is accessible rather than double-parking a truck.


24

Mr. Bull stated he cannot speak on what the prior developers intended use of the property was in 2007, it certainly could and probably would have included some light manufacturing, office and warehousing functions occurring in smaller buildings. Today his client is anticipating that his uses will include some warehousing, light manufacturing or assembly and each use or user involved in these uses would also have an administrative office function, the same as in a small building. From his understanding Phases I and II are used in part for storage functions and light assembly functions. Also a health rehabilitation facility where there are some trucks coming and going. Phase III is vacant. Commissioner Davis stated that although Mr. Bull commented in his rebuttal that anyone who contacted them was added to a list; one of the speakers stated that they had not been reached out to. Was there an affirmative outreach done for all impacted persons in the community? Mr. Bull stated yes, he believes there were three speakers that stated they just heard of this case two to three weeks ago and Ms. Schneider also stated she had not heard about this. Notice letters were sent out. Mr. Stephenson stated that the PHO process requires notice of all property owners within 300 feet and neighborhood association registered with the city within 600 feet. Mr. Bull stated in the case of other abutting neighbors; notices were received because calls were made and this is also when they first heard the history of the cul-de-sac. The letter from Mr. Glover to the best of his knowledge did not come back; they had not heard anything from him until the first PHO hearing. They met with him and others and spoke about the case. They have tried to follow up since. Mr. Bull assured the Commission that they received copies of the cards from the village meetings which was a very different plan and neighborhood circumstances than what has now evolved. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Bull what is his position on a continuance based on the opposition that has been heard this evening. Mr. Bull stated they would prefer a decision this evening if the Planning Commission is willing to do so. He believes the continuance is for this case to be linked to a future case coming through and to be on the same agenda with a General Plan amendment and rezoning case to the west of this project that has recently been filed. Commissioner Davis stated she lives in this community and is familiar with the area and acknowledges the concerns this evening. There are several schools that have opened in this area and it sounds to her that the underlying uses currently on parcels one and two seem to be adequate in terms of what is happening in the neighborhood. The redesign to one large facility instead of six is an area of concern. Commissioner Heck asked for clarification regarding the village approving this project in April except for stipulations 1, 3 and 5?


25

Mr. Stephenson stated that is correct. Commissioner Heck continued that stipulations 1, 3 and 5 are stricter than what they were originally. Mr. Stephenson stated that is correct, what the staff report reflects is what the Planning Hearing Officer approved. Even as the village recommended denying 1, 3 and 5; the Hearing Officer motioned to approve them subject to some additional requirements and changes. That is what is before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Heck stated the Planning Hearing Officer approved the stricter guidelines than what the village had approved. Mr. Stephenson stated the PHO made a motion to approve the site revision that the applicant requested that the village did not and then also stipulation #3 related to landscape set-backs and screen wall changes was voted for approval; as well as stipulation #5 about the maximum building height. PHO approved the height increase but the village did not. Commissioner Heck stated she would like more clarification on the traffic study. Mr. Bull stated that the traffic study estimates traffic based upon the original approval in 2007 compared to this proposed building in 2013. The average daily trip does not just include trucks, although the trucks are the focus. Any and all trips including employees are in this study. The second page of the study focuses on the semi-trucks. Under this analysis it anticipates that the total truck trips under a general light industrial type of classification would be about 32 a day which translate into 16 trucks. Mr. Bull is not aware where the number of 120 trucks came from. Under ITE criteria; under light manufacturing; there would be approximately 32 truck trips per day or approximately 42 trucks trips per day if it were entirely warehousing. Mr. Bull believes it will be a combination of both. Commissioner Heck asked Mr. Bull if he would consider doing a study again specifically because of the existing traffic versus what it was in 2007? Mr. Bull stated this is in the information because the traffic engineer looks at background traffic and other related information as well. The building square footage is what the traffic engineer was using in comparing 120,000 square feet that was shown on the smaller buildings in 2007 that were never built; to the proposed 156,000 square foot building that they hope to build. They are currently working on additional traffic related analysis to determine the most optimistic intersection geometry at the intersection of Southern and Old Southern. What is there today is odd. Mr. Bull is not aware of any additional requests on trip counts but is something they can check to see is it is needed. Commissioner Heck stated it is an obvious concern for the neighborhood because of the amount of semi-trucks and the traffic circulation to get to where they need to go to get access to the freeway around the neighborhood and schools.


26

Mr. Bull stated some neighbors are very concerned with the traffic on 32nd Street and would prefer that there was no access to 32nd Street and others would prefer no access onto Southern Avenue. Commissioner Heck had one more question for Mr. Stephenson regarding the stipulation that the village did not approve; stipulation #1; what would be the alternative. Mr. Stephenson stated the alternative that the village proposed was to deny modification of stipulation 1 and leave the existing stipulation, and site plan in place and the same for stipulation 3 and 5. Commissioner Beletz asked it there was blight or a transient problem on the property. Mr. Bull stated there has been an ongoing problem with dumping of various things and other activities. Mr. Bull asked if he could verify the question regarding the village stipulation #1; this is the heart and soul of this case. Part of the importance there is that the primary speaker who was comparing the 2007 site plan to the then proposed site plan was speaking on behalf; at that time; of the commerce park development to the east. This speaker is now in complete support of what they are requesting. Things have changed since 2007, April and this evening because of the kind of outreach and compromise the applicant is often encouraged to do. Commissioner Davis made a MOTION to continue PHO-1-13—Z-115-07-7(8) for 60 days to the August 13, 2013 Planning Commission hearing so the applicant can further confer with the community and provide additional notices to individuals who are within the 1 to 2 mile radius. Commissioner Heck SECONDED. Commissioner Whiter asked if they are asking applicant to expand what is required by the city ordinance. Commissioner Davis stated she is asking the Commission to recognize the community opposition and hold another neighborhood meeting so that the community can bring to that meeting whom ever they choose and be heard with the opportunity to work with the applicant towards a resolution that the Planning Commission would not have to necessarily have to decide for 60 days. Mr. Stephenson further clarified if this motion passes to require the applicant to send a notice to everyone who submitted cards this evening and those who did may contact others in the area to attend the meeting. In that way everyone will be invited regardless of the location.


27

Commissioner Beletz made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve PHO--1-13--Z-115-07-7(8) per the PHO recommendation with two additional stipulations outlined in the memo dated June 11, 2013 from Ed Bull. Commissioner Montalvo SECONDED. There being no further discussion, Chairman Awai called for a vote and the SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 5-3 (Awai, Heck, Davis) Chairman Awai asked Mr. Stephenson to clarify what was approved. Mr. Stephenson stated the motion was passed by a vote of 5 to 3 to approve per the PHO recommendation with the two additional stipulations outlined in the memo dated June 11, 2013 by Ed Bull. Chairman Awai explained a motion was made and it received a second. A substitute motion was offered and also seconded. The substitute motion must be voted on first and if it did not get a second then the first motion would be voted on. The substitute motion did receive a second so a roll call vote was taken and it passed with 5 in favor and 3 in opposition.

* * * Stipulations: GENERAL 1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and

elevations BUILDING PERSPECTIVE date stamped September 7, 2007 MAY 10, 2013, as modified by the following stipulations, and as approved or modified by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE TRUCK DOCKS BEING LOCATED ONLY ALONG THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THERE BEING ACCESS FOR TRUCKS (INCLUDING SEMI TRUCKS) TO AND FROM THE SITE AT THE CANAL AVENUE ALIGNMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE AS APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

SITE DESIGN 2. That a 50-foot building set back shall be provided from the south property line, as

approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. 3. That a 35-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the south property line,

as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. A 6-foot CMU wall shall be provided adjacent to the south landscape setback. The wall shall be offset two feet for every 50 feet of wall length; the two-foot offset may encroach into the 35-foot landscape setback IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY


28

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A 40-INCH SCREEN WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO PARKING AREAS FACING THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND AN 8-FOOT CMU WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED TO SCREEN LOADING BAYS/DOCKS FROM THE STREET. .

4. That a minimum 35-foot, landscape setback shall be provided along the west

property line, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. Trash enclosures may encroach into the setback a maximum of 10 feet. The landscape setback shall contain a minimum of two staggered rows of trees, planted at rate of approximately 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings; 50 percent of the required trees shall be 2-inch caliper and 50 percent shall be 3-inch caliper. The landscape setback shall contain natural ground covering such as flowers and shrubs.

5. That the maximum BUILDING height of buildings adjacent to the south property

line shall be 27 36 feet, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

6. That development EMPLOYEE AND VISITOR PARKING AREAS WITHIN THE

DEVELOPMENT shall be subject to the Parking Lot Area landscape requirements of Section 623 (C-2 District) of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

7. That loading docks shall not be located between the south property line and the

buildings adjacent to the south property line, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

8. That any lighting of signage shall be from a source exterior to the sign, signs

shall not have interior lighting, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

9. That signage shall not be visible from the west property line, as approved by the

PLANNING AND Development Services Department. ARCHAEOLOGY 10. That in the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction,

the developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

PARKS AND RECREATION 11. That the developer shall dedicate a 20-foot trail easement along the north

property line, as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Oleanders shall not be planted within the trail easement and any existing oleanders within the easement shall be removed.

12. THAT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE

DEVELOPMENT ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY,


29

DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT A CUL-DE-SAC ON CANAL AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE SITE. THE FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN OF THE CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT’S SITE REVIEW PROCESSES.

13. THAT NO EXTERNAL LOUD SPEAKERS SHALL BE PROVIDED OR

OPERATED ON THE PROPERTY. 14. THAT PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER

SHALL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY REQUESTING THE CITY’S ABANDONMENT OF THE CANAL AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN SOUTHERN AVENUE AND THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT IS PROPOSED IN CANAL AVENUE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IF THE RESOLUTION OF ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN PRIOR TO PHYSICALLY CLOSING THE ABANDONED PORTION OF CANAL AVENUE TO PUBLIC TRAFFIC, THE DEVELOPER (IF PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED IN WRITING BY SUCH PROPERTY OWNER(S)) SHALL GRANT TO THE REQUESTING OWNER(S) OF APN 122-68-003 (CURRENTLY CROTHER), 122-68-001A (CURRENTLY KENISON), AND/OR 122-68-001B (CURRENTLY GODFREY) AN APPROXIMATE 25-FOOT WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT(S), TO/FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTY(IES) AND SOUTHERN AVENUE. THE FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN OF THE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT(S) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

15. 14. THAT BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE SHALL NOT BE PROVIDED ON

THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING.

15. THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN THE PATRICK PARK LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE AS PART OF THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING OF THE PROJECT, AS APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

16. THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL RECONSTRUCT THE PUBLIC ART

FEATURES OF PATRICK PARK CONCURRENT WITH THE FIRST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION, AS APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE.

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

GENERAL INFORMATION

TO: Lisa Takata

Deputy City Manager

PACKET DATE: June 27, 2013

FROM: Cris Meyer

City Clerk

SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 17, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 21, 2013

This report provides advance notice of liquor license applications that were received by the City Clerk during the period of Monday, June 17, 2013 through Friday, June 21, 2013. INFORMATION The liquor license application process includes the posting of a public notice of the application at the proposed location for twenty days and the distribution of an application copy or a copy of this report to the following departments for their review: Finance, Planning and Development, Police, Fire, and Street Transportation. Additionally, License Services mails a notice to all registered neighborhood organizations within a one-mile radius of each proposed business location (excluding Special Events). Additional information on the items listed below is generally not available until the twenty-day posting/review period has expired.

LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS

Application Type Legend O-

Ownership L-

Location N-

New OL-

Ownership & Location

AOC- Acquisition of Control

SE- Special Event

Liquor License Series Definitions 1 In State Producer * 7 On sale-beer & wine 11 Hotel/Motel-all liquor

on premises 3 Microbrewery 4 Wholesaler

8 Conveyance license-sale of all liquor on board planes & trains

12 Restaurant-all liquor on premises

5 Government 9 Off sale-all liquor 9S Sampling Privileges

14 Clubs-all liquor on premises

*6 On sale-all liquor 10 Off sale-beer & wine 10S Sampling Privileges

15 Special Event

*On-sale retailer means any person operating an establishment where spirituous liquors are sold in the original container for consumption on or off the premises and in individual portions for consumption on the premises.

2

Dist App. Type

Agent/Owner Name Business Name/Address

Phone Lic.

Type

Approx. Protest

End Date

Within 2,000 Feet

of Light Rail

ProposedAgenda

Date

1 N

Ivy Lin, Agent Lin’s Seafood Buffet 4961 West Bell Road, Ste. B3 602-628-8687

12 7/9/13 No

8/28/13

2 SE

Cherry Murray Phoenix Children’s Hospital Foundation (8/31/13) 6902 East Greenway Pkwy. 602-933-2663

15 N/A N/A

*8/31/13

2 AOC

Lenn Pritchard, Agent Los Osuna Distributing 4705 East Carefree Highway #130 480-595-2160

4 7/16/13 No

8/28/13

4 N

Toma Soro Athens Gyros 830 East Indian School Road 602-265-6606

12 7/12/13 No

8/28/13

8 SE

Kristina Tuba Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church (7/20/13) 4436 East McKinley Street 330-812-4520

15 N/A N/A

*7/20/13

*Event Date – Application not received in time for Council review. For further information regarding any of the above applications, please contact the City Clerk Department, License Services Section, at 602-262-6018. RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information only. No Council action is required.

1

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

GENERAL INFORMATION

TO: Mayor And City Council

PACKET DATE: June 27, 2013

FROM: Karen Peters

Senior Executive Assistant To The City Manager

SUBJECT: 2013 END OF STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION REPORT

SESSION STATS

Days of Session: 151 Sine Die: Friday, June 14, 2013, 12:59 a.m. Number of bills introduced: 1158 Bills signed: 258 Bills vetoed: 26 General effective date: Friday, September 13, 2013

BUDGET OUTCOME After months of negotiations between the Governor’s Office, the Senate President and House Speaker, a 2013-2014 budget was approved by a coalition of the Democratic caucuses and a handful of Republican legislators. The sticking point in the discussions was expansion of AHCCCS coverage and funding restoration for Proposition 204 participants, which was the cornerstone of the Governor’s fiscal plan. Over the objection of a majority of Republicans, the coalition forced a special session and approved the budget that included most of what the Governor was requesting. The $8.8 billion budget did not impact state shared revenues and had fewer fund transfers over previous years. Highlights include:

University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix: $8 million 150 additional Child Protective Services staffing: $12.9 million Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission: $80,000 New tax break for qualifying computer data centers

TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX SIMPLIFICATION LEGISLATION During the fall of 2012, the Governor’s Transaction Privilege Tax (TPT) Simplification Task Force met 18 times to review the state’s sales tax code, auditing procedures, collection processes and internet taxation policies with the goal of developing a plan to simplify these areas for taxpayers. The task force, which consisted of private and public sector representatives (including the City of Phoenix) studied and discussed the many intricacies of Arizona’s sales tax system. The Task Force adopted its final

2

recommendations in December. Phoenix staff agreed with the majority of what was listed in the report. However, the three items that were of municipal concern were (1) transitioning the construction contracting tax formula to a point of sale process, (2) statewide TPT administration, and (3) single audits to only be performed by ADOR. The report reflects the municipal concern. In January, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale) introduced HB 2657: Transaction Privilege Tax Changes, which contained the three items of consternation for cities and towns. The bill passed the House and Ways Committee in February but did not advance. In March, Rep. Lesko used one of her bills, HB 2111, to receive a “strike everything” amendment in the Senate Appropriations Committee to incorporate the provisions of HB 2657 with one change: allowing municipalities to keep their local prime contracting TPT authority while eliminating the state prime contracting TPT and replacing it with a point of sale model. Under this revised proposal, City staff estimated the loss to Phoenix at $28 million (The Joint Legislative Budget Committee pegged the loss to the state at $80 million). Over several months the League of Arizona Cities and Towns staff and Jeff DeWitt, Phoenix’s Chief Financial Officer, met with representatives from the Governor’s Office and the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) and worked on compromise language that delivered the Governor’s goals while mitigating the financial impact on cities and counties. In the final hours of the session, the League, Governor’s Office and the bill sponsor agreed on the following provisions:

An online portal (housed by ADOR) would create one place where sales taxes could be remitted

Taxpayers that do not use the online portal would pay their taxes to ADOR All audits (city/state) would be coordinated by ADOR Uniform audit procedures would be adopted to create consistency for taxpayers Independent service contractors (i.e. plumbers, HVAC, flooring, etc.) would be

exempt from contracting tax, except for major remodel and subcontractor projects

The effective date for this legislation is December 31, 2014. FINAL OUTCOME OF LEGISLATION MONITORED BY THE CITY PUBLIC SAFETY New Laws SB 1324: Critical Infrastructure; Information Disclosure (Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber) adds clarifying language that protects the location of underground gas lines, water/sewer pipes, and other utilities information from general public records requests. SB 1324 was signed by the Governor on April 5. (Laws 2013, Chapter 69)

3

HB 2262: Scrap Metal Dealers; Registration (Rep. Tom Forese, R-Chandler) establishes a statewide scrap metal registration process to be administered by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). Provisions of the bill include requiring sellers of scrap metal to register with DPS; creation of a website that would allow local law enforcement agencies to submit stolen item reports; and regulation of aluminum can dealers. HB 2262 was signed by the Governor on April 29. (Laws 2013, Chapter 137) HB 2455: Unclaimed Property; Firearms; Disposition (Rep. Brenda Barton, R-Payson) mandates that all state and local agencies sell unclaimed or forfeited firearms. HB 2455 was signed by the Governor on April 29. (Laws 2013, Chapter 145) Bills not Enacted SB 1057: AHCCCS; Ambulance Services; Rates (Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix) increased the Arizona Department of Health Services reimbursement for emergency ambulance transports of AHCCCS patients to 80 percent of prescribed rates and 70 percent for non-emergency ambulance transports. The bill failed to move beyond the House Rules Committee. HB 2036: Aerial Luminaries; Prohibited (Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills) clarified that the sale and use of aerial luminaries is prohibited and violations would be a class 1 misdemeanor. The bill never received a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee. HB 2158: Court-Ordered Evaluations (Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills) authorized a law enforcement officer to detain a person believed to be a danger to self or others as a result of a mental disorder on probable cause. The proposed change would have permitted the officer to take into account various sources of information instead of the current standard where personal observation is the sole requirement. HB 2158 never received a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee. HB 2185: Alarm Businesses; Alarm Agents (Rep. Karen Fann, R-Prescott) added clarifying language to assist the Arizona Department of Public Safety in conducting background checks on potential alarm agents and allowed local law enforcement to have access to key information from alarm businesses and agents. HB 2185 did not receive a vote on the Senate Floor. HB 2481: Permissible Consumer Fireworks; Penalty (Rep. David Stevens, R-Sierra Vista) downgraded the penalty for violating regulations related to permissible consumer fireworks to a petty offense. HB 2481 was vetoed by the Governor on April 30. HB 2501: State Liquor Board; Membership; Municipalities (Rep. Doug Coleman, R-Apache Junction) added a municipal representative to the seven-member Arizona State Liquor Board. This bill failed to receive a hearing in the House Commerce Committee.

4

REVENUE & TAXES New Laws HB 2347: Tax Levy; Bond Costs (Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale) limits the amount of a local government’s property tax levy for payment of outstanding bonds to an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest on the bonds. HB 2347 was signed by the Governor on May 7, 2013. (Laws 2013, Chapter 188) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Bills not Enacted SB 1242: Multimedia Production; Tax Incentives (Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson) established an incentive to the multimedia industry to produce motion pictures, episodic TV series, interactive games, commercials and other formats within the state. The bill created a 20 percent refundable tax credit for qualified expenditures with an additional 5 percent to encourage hiring of Arizona residents. The incentive would have been capped annually at $60 million with a maximum of $15 million per project. The legislation also included a 15 percent refundable tax credit for construction of privately funded multimedia production facilities, capped at $10 million each calendar year. SB 1242 never advanced beyond the Senate Finance Committee.

H2514: Economic Recapture Districts (Rep. Doug Coleman, R-Apache Junction) created a mechanism to capture the increment of increased sales tax revenue in a defined district in order to repay bonds or other financing used to improve the specified area. This bill never received a hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee. NEIGHBORHOODS New Laws HB 2309: Criminal Offenses; Sentencing (Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert) makes a number of changes to the criminal sentencing statutes. Of note, victim rights notification for all juvenile misdemeanor offenses will now include violations of city ordinances and petty offenses. As a result, there will be mandatory victim notification on these offenses, which means property owners – including the City – can seek financial restitution for damages that relate to graffiti crime, something that the Phoenix’s Anti-Graffiti Task Force was pursuing. HB 2309 was signed by the Governor on April 5, 2013. (Laws 2013, Chapter 55) TRANSPORTATION & AVIATION New Laws

H2138: Municipalities; Right-of-Way; Transfer (Rep. Frank Pratt, R-Casa Grande) allows for an alternative annexation process pertaining to public right-of-way (ROW). This change eliminates the technical problem that a city or town cannot annex ROW if it

5

extends into county islands surrounded by the city. HB 2138 was signed by the Governor on April 29. (Laws 2013, Chapter 127)

HB 2188: Revisions to Construction Manager at Risk (Rep. Karen Fann, R-Prescott) authorizes price-based competition in the construction manager at risk selection process for projects using federal funds. HB 2188 was signed by the Governor on April 16. (Laws 2013, Chapter 107)

HB 2443: Cities; Counties; Regulatory Review (Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa) amends A.R.S. Section 9-832, exempting licenses and permits dealing with the operations of municipal airports, public and life safety, and zoning. The bill also adds flexibility in the suspension of timeframes for application review in order to not penalize the applicant. HB 2443 was signed by the Governor on April 10. (Laws 2013, Chapter 74) PLANNING & ZONING New Laws SB 1466: Cities; Towns; Dilapidated Buildings (Sen. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford) adds a definition of dilapidated buildings to statute. SB 1466 was signed by the Governor on April 10. (Laws 2013, Chapter 82) Bills not Enacted HB 2371: Technical Correction; Materials; Resident Preference (NOW: Homeowners’ Associations; Omnibus) (Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R-Scottsdale) was amended to address a number of homeowners association items. One aspect of the bill would have created an exemption that would exempt planned communities from maintaining landscaping in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property. The bill never received action on the Senate Floor. HB 2404: Property Managers; Records; Storage (NOW: Building Codes; Energy Efficiency) (Rep. Heather Carter, R-Cave Creek) received a “strike everything” amendment that preempted the City from determining energy code compliance on residential buildings. HB 2404 failed to receive a final vote on the House Floor. WATER & ENVIRONMENT Bills not Enacted SB 1403: United Nations Rio Declaration; Prohibition (Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West) was amended to prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from recognizing the United Nations or any of its declarations as legal authority in Arizona. In addition, the state and local subdivisions were prohibited from spending or receiving money from groups that promoted the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. SB 1403 was approved in the Senate but failed to receive action in the House. As a result, similar language was amended onto HB 2573: Prohibited Governmental Compliance; 2012 NDAA (Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix), which did pass the House but did not receive a hearing in the Senate.

6

HB 2338: Regional Water Augmentation Authorities (Rep. Andy Tobin, R-Paulden) authorized the creation of Regional Water Augmentation Authorities (RWAA) that may receive financial assistance from the Water Supply Development Revolving Trust Fund (WSDRTF) administered by Water Infrastructure Financing Authority. The bill also appropriated $30 million from the State General Fund in FY 2013-14 to the WSDRTF. The bill received an informational hearing in the House Agriculture and Water Committee then held. MISCELLANEOUS Bills not Enacted SB 1045: Health Professionals; Specialty Status Claim (Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix) received a “strike everything” amendment that prohibited cities and towns from adopting ordinances that restrict businesses from regulating access to restrooms and privacy areas based on gender identity or expression. This bill never advanced beyond the House Rules Committee. HB 2005: Political Subdivision Entities; Public Access (Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R- Scottsdale) required political subdivision entities to post their public meetings on their website and also comply with the open meeting and public records laws. This bill failed to receive a vote on the Senate Floor. HB 2578: Licensing; Accountability; Penalties; Exceeding Regulation (Rep. Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert) added civil penalties for municipal employees who knowingly made licensing decisions that were not based on statute, rule, ordinance, or code. HB 2578 was vetoed by the Governor on April 5.

Documents

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL PACKET JULY 2, 2013 · 2014. 5. 20. · TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL PACKET JULY 2, 2013 The July 2, 2013 Executive Session and Policy Session